From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: Is THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK appropriate for -mm for 4.8? Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 09:44:51 +0200 Message-ID: <20160720074451.GB28606@gmail.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f66.google.com ([74.125.82.66]:35672 "EHLO mail-wm0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751036AbcGTHo4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jul 2016 03:44:56 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Andrew Morton , x86 , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Borislav Petkov , Linux Arch Mailing List , Oleg Nesterov , Christian Borntraeger , "linux-s390@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" * Andy Lutomirski wrote: > Cons: It's a bit odd to merge code that can't be enabled as-is. OTOH > x86 could plausibly enable it for 4.8 if Ingo is okay with applying > "x86/dumpstack: Pin the target stack in save_stack_trace_tsk()" and > "x86: Move thread_info into task_struct" during the merge window after > the -mm patchbomb lands. There's quite a few risky stuff piled up already so I'd prefer if we delayed these core bits and the enablement to v4.9. We can carry these core bits in -tip as well, can create a tip:sched/thread_info tree for it and such. I'd prefer that because this way we have natural proximity between patch application, testing and eventual fixes. Then we can expose -next to all these changes as a single, bisectable group of commits and, should anything overly catastrophic happen, remove it and regroup our forces. This would really be the best approach I think, since I'd like to default-enable all this on x86 from the very beginning. Thanks, Ingo